slightly OT, but still connected

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:03:24 GMT, "Clayton Doyles" wrote:

In a purely scientific way of thinking basing everything on so-called
concrete facts and proof, I suppose anyone who doesn't share the mainstream
ideas is irrational?

Who says that is a "scientific" way of thinking? The scientific way of
thinking in no way involves proof or concrete facts. It simply involves
fitting one or more testable theories to a set of observations.
Rationality is a component of selecting between competing theories;
choosing one that isn't "mainstream" is not necessarily a sign of
irrationality. Irrationality is choosing a theory that is not based on
observation at all (for example, biblical creation).


I wonder how Creationist physicists and others have
managed to still work side-by-side for many years without disruption.
Boggles the mind, yet it is done every day.

There is no such thing as a "Creationist physicist", so there is no
issue here. There is no such thing as a scientist who believes in
biblical creation. There are people who believe in biblical creation and
also practice elements of science in their professions; presumably they
work side-by-side with real scientists because the issue of their
irrational beliefs is left undiscussed.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:03:24 GMT, "Clayton Doyles" wrote:

In a purely scientific way of thinking basing everything on so-called
concrete facts and proof, I suppose anyone who doesn't share the
mainstream
ideas is irrational?

Who says that is a "scientific" way of thinking? The scientific way of
thinking in no way involves proof or concrete facts. It simply involves
fitting one or more testable theories to a set of observations.
Rationality is a component of selecting between competing theories;
choosing one that isn't "mainstream" is not necessarily a sign of
irrationality. Irrationality is choosing a theory that is not based on
observation at all (for example, biblical creation).


I wonder how Creationist physicists and others have
managed to still work side-by-side for many years without disruption.
Boggles the mind, yet it is done every day.

There is no such thing as a "Creationist physicist", so there is no
issue here.

I don't fathom how you can make a statement like that. I am such a person,
have been all of my life.


There is no such thing as a scientist who believes in
biblical creation.

Wrong!

Clay


There are people who believe in biblical creation and
also practice elements of science in their professions; presumably they
work side-by-side with real scientists because the issue of their
irrational beliefs is left undiscussed.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Anyone who is tryimg to legitimize and/or refute the age of the
universe with the book of Genisis while ignoring the work of Gerald L.
Schroeder in "The Science of God" is severly limited. Time depends on
where you are i.e. inside (man) or outside (God) the universe.

Anyone who is tryimg to legitimize and/or refute the age of the
universe with the book of Genisis while ignoring the work of Gerald L.
Schroeder in "The Science of God" is severly limited. Time depends on
where you are i.e. inside (man) or outside (God) the universe.

Anyone who is tryimg to legitimize and/or refute the age of the
universe with the book of Genisis while ignoring the work of Gerald L.
Schroeder in "The Science of God" is severly limited. Time depends on
where you are i.e. inside (man) or outside (God) the universe.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:11:08 GMT, "Clayton Doyles" wrote:

There is no such thing as a "Creationist physicist", so there is no
issue here.

I don't fathom how you can make a statement like that. I am such a person,
have been all of my life.

I wouldn't call you a physicist if you believe in biblical creation. To
me, "physicist" and "scientist" aren't titles found on a business card;
they describe a way of thinking. That way of thinking is incompatible
with belief in something like biblical creation.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:03:24 GMT, "Clayton Doyles" wrote:


In a purely scientific way of thinking basing everything on so-called
concrete facts and proof, I suppose anyone who doesn't share the mainstream
ideas is irrational?


Who says that is a "scientific" way of thinking? The scientific way of
thinking in no way involves proof or concrete facts. It simply involves
fitting one or more testable theories to a set of observations.
Rationality is a component of selecting between competing theories;
choosing one that isn't "mainstream" is not necessarily a sign of
irrationality. Irrationality is choosing a theory that is not based on
observation at all (for example, biblical creation).



I wonder how Creationist physicists and others have
managed to still work side-by-side for many years without disruption.
Boggles the mind, yet it is done every day.


There is no such thing as a "Creationist physicist", so there is no
issue here. There is no such thing as a scientist who believes in
biblical creation. There are people who believe in biblical creation and
also practice elements of science in their professions; presumably they
work side-by-side with real scientists because the issue of their
irrational beliefs is left undiscussed.

I worked with a protein chemist who believed in creationism. He filled
his niche (X-ray crystallography) very competently and professionally,
but the rest of us (more protein chemists and molecular biologists)
would just shake our heads in wonder regarding his beliefs. All the
more interesting was that we were using some "unnatural selection" to
create a protein better suited to the needs of the product we were
developing. A great lab analog to natural selection. Despite working
in a field that constantly generates data supporting evolution, he flat
out refused to accept it. Seemed like an odd career choice.
If interested: http://tinyurl.com/c7ojz

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:35:37 GMT, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:11:08 GMT, "Clayton Doyles" wrote:

There is no such thing as a "Creationist physicist", so there is no
issue here.

I don't fathom how you can make a statement like that. I am such a person,
have been all of my life.

I wouldn't call you a physicist if you believe in biblical creation. To
me, "physicist" and "scientist" aren't titles found on a business card;
they describe a way of thinking. That way of thinking is incompatible
with belief in something like biblical creation.

_______________________________________________ __

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Is it true that Satan put dinosaur bones on Earth to confuse people
or did the Ark have two T-rex's, two Brontosaurae, etc?
-Rich

Ï "RichA" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...
[snip]
Is it true that Satan put dinosaur bones on Earth to confuse people
or did the Ark have two T-rex's, two Brontosaurae, etc?

Uh oh. First signs of thread deterioration :-)

Before it deteriorates further, let me thank all the participants. It was a
quite interesting read.

-Rich
--
I. N. Galidakis
http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/
Eventually, _everything_ is understandable

"Clayton Doyles" wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
.. .
[snip]
There is no such thing as a "Creationist physicist", so there is no
issue here.

I don't fathom how you can make a statement like that. I am such a person,
have been all of my life.

How can you claim to be a scientist yet believe in a theory which is
directly contradicted by the available evidence?


Tim
--
May contain traces of nuts.